Editor’s Note: This is another terrific guest post submitted by one of our blog friends, Upinak.
While the SCOTUS has had the media all in a tither regarding gay marriage and such over the last couple of weeks, Obama has been talking environmental issues again. The problematic junk science, in which so many people believe is killing the earth, such as carbon emission, was given very little coverage by media. No surprise right? Here is the video of the big Climate speech Obama gave on June 25th at Georgetown University. Take time to watch it.
What would be done via what Obama wants concerning the junk science of the so called global warming and carbon solutions? More standards on vehicles, appliances buildings that would increase the cost of anything new, making anything used for humans almost unattainable.
The US hasn’t really been using any of the “hydrofluorcarbons” in a large portion of US made appliances due to regulation established in the late 1980’s, when they thought that humans were causing the ozone to deplete over the Antarctic, I am really not sure how this is going to help the U.S. The only assumption is that other countries will go rank in file and do the same… yet only the people in Washington D.C. believe this.
Now there shall be permitting of solar panels and windmills on anything considered Federal Government land? So, when the federal government implements an area in which to do a study that has a solar panel attached to said instrument; will the federal government tax itself? I know of no one setting up solar panels or windmills on federal grounds… do you?
Do you honestly believe that the Obama Administration is going to strengthen levies due to hurricanes, especially since he has already been in 5 years? That didn’t help New Jersey, did it? How about give more to the farmers when many large farming outfits already receive subsidies? Or even bother to speak about the Keystone XL pipeline, mentioning that it would need to show that it would not cause emissions’… because if you believe that I want whatever you are smoking!
This is the old cap and trade in a different sheep skin, with the same wolf. And what it is going to do is take out more private business, which we do not need.
ALman says: I’ve had this notion for a long time. It may have originated from the era of LBJ and the Great Society. Today, I firmly hold that we have a government that has become “unbalanced.” Setting aside the judicial system, it seems to me we need some sort of revision to how the president and Congress govern.
Environmental, energy, and foreign policy issues, to name a few, seem to be ones that ought not to “rise or fall” based upon whoever is president at any given time. Simply, I think that the on-going “business” ought to be decided, planned, and funded as I think the constitution stipulates.
The role of the president is not to change this independently. Rather, the role of the president to be the chief executive in carrying them out, not fundamentally changing or modifying them through Executive Order or whatever the case might be.
As I see it, clearly defined authority ought to be outlined for when the president needs to take action on more immediate matters. Anyway, it just ought not be that we have one president who takes in a direction toward solar power, then another one takes the country in a different one. They both ought to be working with an on-going policy as established by the Congress. For more times when decisive action is needed, the president has the authority to carry out the command, yet based upon established relationships as discussed and formulated by Congress.
It seems to me that our major, major matters need to be identified, researched, discussed, decided, planned, and developed not by the capriciousness or ideology of a single person. Maybe if this was done, it wouldn’t eliminate the wolves coming in sheep’s clothing; however, it might help to diminish and contain them.
Skeezix2047 says: The ban in the ’80’s was on CHLOROflourocarbons like CClxFx. The chlorine caused the diminution of the ozone in the upper atmosphere. The “fix” was to use HYDROflourocarbons like CF2(CH3)2, no chlorine, but more dangerous to humans because of flammability hazard.
upinak says: Skeezix, I didn’t realize that. But per the media… it was still used as a ruse for the “hole in the atmosphere above Antarctica”.
3 Comments